By fixing a frame of interpretation one limits both meaning and expressions of truth

By using the interpretive frames of authoritative institutions, eg media and academic institutions, one's discussion is limited to the ideas which oppose change.

For example,
science vs religion
or
materialism vs spiritual idealism
does not identify a frame where truth can be found.

This is true, but propaganda requires that people judge that an objective (material) truth is based on the authority of science.
Yet if one claims that "materialism is not a valid interpretation" and also provides a math model within which the same scientific properties of material exist, as also exist in the current authoritative scientific construct, nonetheless this limited media outlet (and one of the few media outlets wherein such ideas can be expressed), and an outlet claiming to be a champion of truth, subsequently becomes an outlet opposed to revolutions of the mind, if (because) it will not uphold such an expression of an idea, as being accurate.
That is, your judgment of truth, opposes your attempts to realize freedom for our society, and exposes your belief in inequality. This discredits the opposition movements in the US, which seek truth and justice. The US, is based on the Declaration of Independence (DI), which is about equality and ideas. That is, the revolution of ideas is the idea about which the US is supposed to stand.
not about monopoly businesses (and their hired academics, and their hired religious authorities, or servile religious leaders) dominating society, and (the DI is) not about monopolistic interpretations of truth (rather equality and free-inquiry, leading to a wider range of practical creativity).